Share This Story!

Editorial: Comey's firing only raises suspicions

Ousted FBI Director James Comey has given people plenty of reason to question his judgment, particularly over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation from last summer through the past week.

This story is part of the series TOP STORIES

Editorial: Comey's firing only raises suspicions

Evansville
Published 7:15 a.m. CT May 10, 2017

In this Wednesday, May 3, 2017, photo, then-FBI Director James Comey testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. President Donald Trump abruptly fired Comey on May 9, ousting the nation's top law enforcement official in the midst of an investigation into whether Trump's campaign had ties to Russia's election meddling.(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)(Photo: AP)

Ousted FBI Director James Comey has given people plenty of reason to question his judgment, particularly over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation from last summer through the past week.

But to abruptly dismiss an FBI director less than four years into his 10-year term — as President Trump did Tuesday — is an extraordinary action that should be based on extraordinary wrongdoing by the director. That’s true at any time, and even more so when the FBI is investigating alleged collusion between the Russians and people associated with the Trump campaign.

At a minimum, the president owes the public a much fuller explanation than the few skimpy paragraphs in his letter to Comey, in which the president asserted he’s not under investigation and said little more than that he was following the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Sessions’ deputy.

Those recommendations, in letters released Tuesday, read more like pretexts for the firing than the real story. The deputy attorney general’s memo cited Comey’s news conference last July about the Clinton investigation, raising a “why now?” question about the dismissal.

The timing feeds suspicions that Comey’s firing is really an effort to disrupt or derail the FBI’s investigation into the Russian connection, one that Sessions supposedly recused himself from after misleading the Senate about two meetings he had with the Russian ambassador. So why was Sessions involved in firing the man overseeing that inquiry?

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian meddling was already tainted by the actions of its chairman, who appeared to be carrying water for the president. Now the FBI’s investigation is tainted, too, as Comey’s replacement will be named by the president whose associates are under investigation.

If nothing else, Comey’s firing re­inforces the need for a Watergate-style congressional committee, or a 9/11-style commission, to investigate the Russian connection, and a special prosecutor to deal with any related criminal issues.

FBI directors’ terms are set at 10 years to span presidencies and help ensure that the nation’s premier law enforcement agency remains independent from partisan politics. In the agency’s history, only one director has been dismissed midterm, and that was over ethics concerns.

Comey came to the job with a reputation for courage and independence. His lapses in judgment typically occurred at times when he was trying to make the best of bad options. For example, the FBI director took it upon himself to announce that Clinton would not be indicted in the email inquiry after Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a foolhardy, impromptu meeting with Bill Clinton, calling into question the Justice Department’s impartiality.

Then, just days before the election, Comey sent a cryptic letter to Congress suggesting that the email saga might not be over after all. He testified last week that it makes him “mildly nauseous” to think that his action might have tilted the election.

For a president to fire an FBI director who’s investigating his campaign leaves the nation feeling similarly queasy.